Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications

White House, FCC Unveil 5G Push and $20B Fund For Rural Broadband (cnet.com) 117

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
The White House on Friday will unveil a new 5G push to position the US ahead of global rivals in the race to deploy the next-generation wireless technology. President Donald Trump and Federal Communications Chairman Ajit Pai will announce new airwaves auctions and plans to spend $20.4 billion over 10 years on rural broadband. From a report: The FCC will auction off three segments of millimeter-wave spectrum -- which can offer insane data speeds but has limited range -- for commercial use. The auction is scheduled for December, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said on a conference call with reporters ahead of the White House event. He said the FCC plans to auction off 3,400 MHz of spectrum in three different high-frequency bands. "This will be the largest spectrum auction in American history," he said. Pai went onto say that this auction, along with others planned for the future, are putting the US on a good path. "The US is well-positioned to take a lead in 5G," he said.

The FCC is also announcing the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund. The agency plans to reallocate $20.4 billion from its Universal Service Fund over the next 10 years to subsidize eligible companies to build out broadband infrastructure in underserved areas. The money will be allocated to internet service providers that can provide a minimum of 25 megabit per second downloads in areas that are currently in need of connectivity, Pai said. He added that the new infrastructure will also help bring 5G to these rural areas. "There are a number of startups that are working on millimeter wave technology to bring 5G to rural America," he said on the call.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

White House, FCC Unveil 5G Push and $20B Fund For Rural Broadband More

White House, FCC Unveil 5G Push and $20B Fund For Rural Broadband

Comments Filter:

  • Why can't they build their own rural coops and do it themselves using private enterprise?

    • Re:Sounds like a waste of scarce tax dollars (Score:5, Insightful)

      by flippy ( 62353 ) on Friday April 12, 2019 @12:12PM (#58427492) Homepage
      It's much more expensive to do that in underserved / rural areas, and that's exactly what the Universal Service Fund was designed to help with.
      • yes, but not needed.
        4G is already there, and sats are coming with decent speeds/times. So, better to use 4G for phones and let the sats(or the phone companies) compete for rural broadband.
        What I find interesting is that the feds can happily subsidize RBOCS, etc to compete against true free enterprise, and oppose local govs from doing fiber as utility.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          It is a waste without oversight of the companies involved.

          Money spent previously did not result in usable broadband despite the companies claims.

          Those companies should not receive and further funding.

          Same goes for cellular, my phone always says 4g, however it is to slow to use with ridiculous latency.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        It's much more expensive to do that in underserved / rural areas, and that's exactly what the Universal Service Fund was designed to help with.

        This is true, but there is a big elephant in the room. The main "justification" that the ISPs give for having regulations rolled back is that it will allow them to "spur innovation" and create a better experience for the customer. The claim that rolling back net neutrality, for example, was necessary for them to be willing to invest in infrastructure.

        So, where is this infrastructure? You're telling us citizens and tax payers that, despite getting pretty much getting everything you wanted from your captured

      • Seems like the money is always spent incorrectly.

        https://www.dailyyonder.com/op... [dailyyonder.com]

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Strider- ( 39683 )

          That map is missing a lot of stuff. For example, Chelan and Douglas counties both have PUD fiber, which supplies gigabit FTTH to virtually every address in these rural counties, for an extremely reasonable price. Once you have the fiber installed, the citizens have a choice of some 10 ISPs, 6 or 8 TV providers, and a dozen telephone companies. Total access fee for the fiber is something like $15/mo, and the ISPs are about $20.

  • BOO! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    BOO for killing high frequency S band weather radars in the US.

  • The White House on Friday will unveil a new 5G push to position the US ahead of global rivals in the race to deploy the next-generation wireless technology. President Donald Trump and Federal Communications Chairman Ajit Pai will announce new airwaves auctions and plans to spend $20.4 billion over 10 years on rural broadband.

    And here I thought the Republican Party was the party of free trade, competition, small government and fiscal responsibility that cannot abide the sight of subsidies?!? Shouldn't we go easy on the irresponsible payments of subsidies and instead wait and watch the always rational, invisible hand of the free market fix the rural broadband problem?

    • Re:Fiscal responsibility? (Score:5, Informative)

      by flippy ( 62353 ) on Friday April 12, 2019 @12:16PM (#58427524) Homepage
      While I'm no supporter of a lot of Republican policies, I'm actually with them on this one. According to the original article, they're planning on reallocating those funds from the Universal Service Fund - and this sort of thing (getting telecom services to underserved / rural areas) is exactly what the USF was intended to help with.

      • Re:Fiscal responsibility? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by wierd_w ( 1375923 ) on Friday April 12, 2019 @12:47PM (#58427748)

        It certainly is, but I would look very closely at the agreement before signing off on it.

        I remember the 90s, and the 200bn that got wasted because the telecoms wanted a handout on government dimes.

        Poaching the USF with promises of what it is supposed to be used for, without actually delivering, is the actual track record here.

        I would only support this kind of deal if there were strong liabilities for failure to deliver. I am talking board and CEO jail time levels of liability here.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by flippy ( 62353 )
          I'm not against some sort of oversight or at least accountability here, but at least this is a step in the right direction - even if it's a small step.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          >I would only support this kind of deal if there were strong liabilities for failure to deliver. I am talking board and CEO jail time levels of liability here.

          I would only support it if the big ISPs -- Comcast, ATT, etc. -- agree to stop suing municipalities who attempt to lay municipal fiber. Either you're capable of rolling our broadband, or you're not. You shouldn't be able to sue a government because you want a monopoly in an area and complain about unfair competition, and then turn around and ask for help in other, less profitable areas.

          I'm tired, as a tax payer, of subsidizing your profits.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by nmb3000 ( 741169 )

          I remember the 90s, and the 200bn that got wasted because the telecoms wanted a handout on government dimes.

          Never forget this anytime you see big telecos complaining about infrastructure costs, or smothering co-ops and municipal ventures which need to make use of utility poles and easements.

          The Book of Broken Promises: $400 Billion Broadband Scandal [irregulators.org] (or a summary from the author [reddit.com]) should be required reading for any lawmakers involved with the USF or FCC.

    • I think that Trump/GOP are subsidizing this to compete against 1-web, starlink, etc.
      Sadly, they are great with subsidies when it helps their favorite businesses who fund them.

      • Sadly, they are great with subsidies when it helps their favorite businesses who fund them.

        As are the Dems. Or did you really think they were handing out OPM out of the goodness of their hearts?

    • They're just not very well informed on stuff that doesn't involve destroying society so they can attain their glorious religious apocalypse while getting rich in the process. Someone over there must have just finally figured out that the decades-long stifling of rural broadband roll-outs negatively impacts their own voting base dramatically more than it does the Democrats.

      Either that or they have known all along and they just now noticed that the voting base finally got a clue about it.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      And here I thought the Republican Party was the party of free trade, competition, small government and fiscal responsibility that cannot abide the sight of subsidies

      You think wrong. The Republican Party is the one that STARTED the road to Big Government and Big Business working together.

      Lincoln couldn't have won the Civil War if not for the cooperation of various businessmen providing their goods and services. It's no coincidence some of those businesses enjoyed government contracts during/after the war and became Robber Barons^WCaptains of Industry.

      The Reconstruction and Transcontinental Railroad were big government projects headed by Republicans.

      The Progressive move

  • America does not make the 5G equipment. Are we buying from Europe, or China, specifically, Huawei? Also interesting that Trump/GOP want to subsidize this when multiple sats are about to come on-line with 1G bandwidth with 20 ms pings across the globe and for under $70/month.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DogDude ( 805747 )
      Also interesting that Trump/GOP want to subsidize this when multiple sats are about to come on-line with 1G bandwidth with 20 ms pings across the globe and for under $70/month.

      I would imagine they've been getting some good bribes recently from the telecom industry.

    • 20ms to a satellite? You've been lied to, son.

    • Are we buying from Europe, or China, specifically, Huawei?

      Do you seriously not follow any news at all?

  • If the US Government was directing a ton of money to a space based internet system run by SpaceX or Amazon, one would imagine /. community would go crazy with people yelling about unfair subsidies. But somehow if the same money gets dropped in AT&T/Verizon's lap it's ok? Despite the fact that these legacy telcos haven't done crap for rural broadband...ever. And indeed tend to fight community based providers that try and pick up the slack.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by flippy ( 62353 )

      Well, if we're being fair here, we'd have to say that it's either OK in both cases, or in neither case.

      And the outlawing of community-based providers? To me, outlawing them is an abomination. Let community-based players try, just like anyone else.

      • If the US Government was directing a ton of money to a space based internet system run by SpaceX or Amazon, one would imagine /. community would go crazy with people yelling about unfair subsidies. But somehow if the same money gets dropped in AT&T/Verizon's lap it's ok?

        Well, if we're being fair here, we'd have to say that it's either OK in both cases, or in neither case.

        I don't know that's fair. I think it's reasonable to feel differently about those things. Musk actually delivers on his government contracts. The telcos, on the other hand...

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by flippy ( 62353 )
          I can see your point. To my mind, there should be consequences to any company getting a subsidy if they don't deliver. Maybe like "if you don't deliver, we expect repayment of the subsidy."

  • Free Money to the network providers (Score:4, Informative)

    by ripvlan ( 2609033 ) on Friday April 12, 2019 @02:28PM (#58428304)

    Something like this was provided in my home state. Fraud allegations are flying. Smart business or poor management of funds? you decide.

    A local phone/internet provider VTEL received $116 million in state money to provide Wireless Internet to all the undeserved (aka the last mile). They built the Wireless towers but only 1200 people have service. Why? Just because there's a tower doesn't mean the signal reaches a house. The home may be 'round the edge of a mountain ridge or in a forest. Of those 1200 with service, many report okay quality until it rains or snows which causes quality to be more like dial-up.

    A federal program to do the same will line the pockets of the smart corps. The incentive needs to be paid for each customer signed up. In the VTEL case they were awarded money to build the infrastructure, and around here $116 million is a lot of $$ per person. There's just barely 600k people in the whole state and this corner of state in question has very very low population. I can see needing investment money to build the infrastructure because it is expensive. However, the goal of the program is to get people online. And I think that needs to be a large part of the stick/carrot.

    https://www.vnews.com/Money-Is... [vnews.com]

    • Perhaps the VTELS of the world should be paid by the subscriber count and not by the number of towers built!!

  • We've heard this before (Score:4, Insightful)

    by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Friday April 12, 2019 @03:55PM (#58428724) Journal

    Back when Bill Clinton was president, the U.S. government provided ISPs with billions of taxpayer dollars to build out the internet infrastructure in this country. ISPs promised that within a decade, consumers would have 45/45 Mbps network speeds for a low price (can't remember the figure).

    Almost three decades later, the vast majority of people either can't get 45Mbps (download only), let alone 45 up, or the cost is not low.

    Now we're being told if we hand over more billions of our dollars, private industry will do what they said they would do those three decades ago.

    I wouldn't hold my breath.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by antdude ( 79039 )

      Where did all that money go? Government should sue these companies in failing to complete that promise.

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close